[Inclosure in No.
115—Translation.]
Mr. Mariscal to
Mr. Butler.
Department of Foreign Affairs,
Mexico, January 23, 1896.
Mr. Chargé: I had the honor to receive your
note, dated the 31st of December last, under cover whereof you were
pleased to inclose copy of a dispatch from the Department of State
of your Government and copy of a memorandum presented by Mr. Lacey
touching the case of Chester W. Rowe.
[Page 1011]
In the first of those inclosures the Honorable Secretary of State,
after setting forth certain considerations designed to call into
question the application of our laws on naturalization to the case
aforesaid, suggests the idea of soliciting the judgment of the
courts upon the interpretation which has been given to said laws to
invest Chester W. Rowe with Mexican citizenship, and in virtue
thereof to waive the obligation to deliver him to the United States
under the treaty on extradition in force between the two
countries.
The Government of Mexico would have been pleased had the Government
of the United States advanced the judicial declaration which it
solicits before a competent Mexican court, when through the medium
of your legation it was advised that Chester W. Rowe had been
committed to the trial judge and it was invited to assist in the
prosecution of the case. At that time, instead of advancing the
judicial declaration to-day solicited, the agent of the State of
Iowa consented to substantiate the accusation formulated by the
public prosecution and constituted himself a party in curia, under
civil proceedings, before a judge of this federal district whose
jurisdiction he thus recognized. He, therefore, recognized likewise
the international effect of the naturalization of Rowe which
invested the said judge with authorization to try him (Rowe).
The naturalization of Chester W. Rowe, being declared by the
President, in compliance with the constitution of the country which
grants Mexican citizenship to a foreigner upon the acquisition of
any real estate in the Republic, without reservation of his original
nationality,1 the department in
my charge can not call into doubt the efficacy of such
naturalization, even in its international bearings. Furthermore,
among its faculties, the Executive is not authorized to introduce
any revision of proceedings pending before a legal tribunal, being
solely obliged to explain or defend its acts before a competent
court, at the instance of a legitimate party in interest, as
undoubtedly the Government of the United States is in the present
case.
In view of the foregoing, I find myself under the necessity of
stating that it does not lie within the faculties of this Government
to institute the declaration of judicial interpretation indicated by
the Honorable Secretary of State of the United States. However, your
Government will find the Mexican courts prepared to pass in due
legal form upon such interpretation, if it be deemed expedient.
I reiterate to you, etc.
